Junior Court Officer Should Not Be Permitted To Draw Higher Pay Scale To That Of Seniors In Solitary Cadre: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Registrar General of the Court to reconsider the representation made by 12 Court officers, seeking to cure anomaly in their pay scale with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018.A single judge bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar (now retired) allowed in part the petition filed...
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Registrar General of the Court to reconsider the representation made by 12 Court officers, seeking to cure anomaly in their pay scale with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018.
A single judge bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar (now retired) allowed in part the petition filed by Umashankara C and other and said,
“The issue requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly depicts that the junior should not be permitted to draw a higher pay scale to that of the seniors in a solitary cadre.”
The petitioners had approached the court questioning a Memo dated 03-09-2021, by which their joint representation seeking setting right of the anomaly of pay fixation qua the 2nd respondent (S.N. Nataraja) who despite being the junior to the petitioners is given a higher pay scale than that of the petitioners.
It was argued that Nataraja, despite being junior to the petitioners, is drawing a higher pay scale. Owing to this disparity in the pay scale, petitioners submitted a representation, which was rejected without them being given an opportunity of being heard.
Petitioners claimed they are entitled to their pay to be equivalent to that of 2nd respondent, as all of them are presently in the same cadre and the 2nd respondent is junior to them. Rule 6(b) of the Karnataka Rules 2018, permits setting right any anomaly consequent upon adoption of the Central Pay Rules of 2008 or 2016.
The Registrar General opposed the plea saying that while adopting the pay rules, what has emerged is beneficial to the 2nd respondent and petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that they should be granted that particular pay scale. Petitioners are being given the pay scale applicable to the Court Officers and what is granted to the 2nd respondent is also the same, it was submitted.
The bench noted that in terms of the notification dated 06-03-2018 the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018 was notified adopting Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 and Central Civil Services Pay Rules, 2016 to all the officers of the 1st respondent with effect from 06.10.2004.
Then referring to the endorsement issued by the registry taking shelter under Rule 7 r/w Rule 10 of the 6th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 and 7th Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules of 2016 to reject the claim of petitioners that they do not fulfil the conditions prescribed in the Rules, the court said,
“Rule 7 r/w Note 10 of the Rules 2008 is applicable to a senior Government servant promoted to higher post before 01.01.2006. Petitioners were not promoted to the cadre of Court Officers before 01.01.2006.”
Relying on Apex court judgments in the case of Jaipal V. State of Haryana (1988) the court said, “The 1st respondent (Registrar General) has to reconsider the case of the petitioners, strictly in consonance with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court referred to supra not with reference to Rule 7 r/w Note 10 of the Rules 2008.”
Allowing the petition in part the court set aside the endorsement and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, within three months.
Appearance: Advocate Sridhar Prabhu for Petitioners
HCGP B.V. Vidyulatha for R1.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Case Title: Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 2851 OF 2022